Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
98 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 96 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 167 (670338)
08-13-2012 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by herebedragons
08-12-2012 10:46 PM


Ok, good point. But there is no claim of common descent in these examples, only order and systematic organization. This could support the concept of a designer that appreciates these qualities and uses them into the designs. I would also suggest that they are indeed organized based on shared characteristics as well as scale

This logic is not correct. The hierarchical organization of matter into planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters and superclusters, observed universe [interstellar neighborhood deliberately omitted] is consistent with a designer who appreciates that particular organization, but it is not supportive of any such thing because it is not unique to a universe without a designer. In fact, for it to be supportive of the idea, you would need some significant hypotheses that are ruled out by such an order. While you may be able to artificial construct a counter example, I would submit that such a counter example is not an actual theory about which there is any debate.

However, I didn't mean it to be a direct comparison with common ancestry, only to suggest that a case could be made that a designer would design in a very orderly, structured, systematic way

And yet no ID proponent or creationist would ever accept the argument that examples of unorder and unsystematic, or seemingly illogical choices, that might be indicated as consistent with evolution, are counter examples to a designer or creator.

If a designer did create life on earth, what would we expect?"

This question cannot be answered without making assumption that we can know the purpose, motivation, and limitations of the designer. By manipulating our assumptions, and by including an opportunity for the designer to deviate from any assumption at a whim, ANY state of existence can be accommodated as consistent with a designer.

Given the unknowable nature of the designer, it seems unlikely that we could ever find a construction or quality that would strongly support detecting the designer through the designs. We wont find any tool marks that we might find on an arrow head.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by herebedragons, posted 08-12-2012 10:46 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by herebedragons, posted 08-13-2012 10:20 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 33 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 12:43 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 167 (670387)
08-13-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by herebedragons
08-13-2012 10:20 AM


ID: "Well, maybe the designer appreciates order and systematic organization."

This is the objectionable part. This is not a conclusion reached logically; what you have done is simply attribute what is already known to a designer to whom you ascribe a desire to do things as you find them.

Thus your sentences are merely consistent and not supportive.

It says that any counter example is automatically an artificial construct and therefore cannot be an actual theory.

No, it does not. In essence I am saying that an ordered arrangement would exist with or without a designer, hence order is not evidence for a designer.

No proponent of evolution would ever accept the argument that examples of order and systematic, seemingly designed products are counter examples to a random, unguided process.

Not so fast.
For one thing, 'seemingly designed' is a meaningless term.

Scientists expect an ordered system to result from common descent and we know that certain deviations from order cannot possibly result from evolution. On the other hand, there is absolutely no design that cannot be created at a whim.

If you think about it, any classification system is "artificial" in that it depends solely on the criteria specified to define the classification system.

You seem to be arguing my position rather than your own.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by herebedragons, posted 08-13-2012 10:20 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by herebedragons, posted 08-14-2012 11:30 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 167 (670445)
08-15-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by herebedragons
08-14-2012 11:30 AM


I did not propose that line of reasoning as scientific support of ID or of a designer.

You did use the word "support", and that's what I am objecting to.

I start with the assumption that the character of the designer would be revealed in his designs.

Exactly. You have assumed every single part of your conclusion.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by herebedragons, posted 08-14-2012 11:30 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 167 (670471)
08-15-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 12:43 PM


If a biological system displays properties of rational design, then that is a point in favor of viewing it as engineered.

Nobody knows what the characteristics of a designed biological system are. Instead we have things like 'I know it when I see it', specified complexity, and irreducible complexity which are attempts to say 'order' == design. If we could provide a scientific methodology for identifying such characteristics, we would be on our way to making ID scientific.

So add up your points as you will, but simply noting the order is consistent with design is not a way of evaluating support, because 'order' can be produced by evolutionary processes.

But if flawed design is evidence against ID, then rational design is evidence for ID.

Nope. That's simply not the case.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 12:43 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 2:51 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 167 (670477)
08-15-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 2:51 PM


Yes, it is. If you argue that flawed design is a point against ID, then the opposite must necessarily be true.

What do you mean by "point". Can we add up points for and points against and reach a conclusion based on the total?

Your argument is flawed, and much of the discussion I see in this thread attempts to hammer away at the error you state here explicitly.

I had avoided supporting my statement because I had thought the reasoning behind it is obvious. But in face of a "Yes it is argument" I provide the following example.

I might postulate for example, that iron based blood cells indicates a designer who copied his own biochemistry. Prevalence of iron based blood is absolutely required by my postulate. Accordingly, counter-examples are particularly damaging to my "argument".

Yet, given that the mechanism for transporting oxygen through the body and releasing it where it is needed is highly dependent on iron, that iron is a common element in the population II/III solar systems and on earth, and the ready availability of oxygen as a participant in energy releasing systems, we can easily come up with alternative reasons for why iron based blood chemistry is prevalent.

I guess the short answer is that scoring points for a given proposition is meaningless if every other proposition scores the same point.

You misunderstand irreducible complexity. The IC argument never was order = design. Just saying.

I don't think so. Irreducible complexity is a refutation of evolution by showing that evolution is implausible because natural selection would not work. But irreducible complexity is also an argument that the complexity in question can be explained as design by intelligence.

ABE:

Whenever someone asserts that if a proposition is true, the inverse of a proposition is also true, I know immediately that the argument has a flaw. The conclusion may be correct, but is unsupported by the argument. Your argument regarding evidence does exactly that.

End of ABE

Edited by NoNukes, : Add a final argument.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 2:51 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 4:09 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 167 (670486)
08-15-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 4:09 PM


You did not address my argument at all in the above. My argument is that if one argues that bad design is evidence against ID, then rational design is evidence in favor of ID. Instead of addressing this point, you went off into a tangent IMHO.

I did address your argument to the extent necessary to show that your argument was incorrect. I did not address whether your conclusion was correct.

The "tangent" was providing an example to show you that your argument was of an illogical form. My proposed argument regarding the ferrophile designer is of exactly the same logical form as the argument you provided

The form of your argument is that if a proposition is true (bad design implies no designer) then its inverse (not bad design implies a designer) must also be true. I can provide any number of examples of bad arguments of this form, but I should not need to do so. It is well known that the syllogism you are using is wrong.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 4:09 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 167 (670583)
08-16-2012 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by herebedragons
08-16-2012 9:02 AM


Even in the most extreme case, if everything was created only 6000 yrs ago and rapidly diversified after the flood we would still expect a nested hierarchy of sorts, just with large discontinuities between "kinds".

We would expect a nested hierarchy, yes, but not the particular one we observe. Besides, if we are doing science, then we know that life is billions of years old, and that life forms much older than 6000 years fit within the hierarchy in a way that shows a relationship to existing organisms.

The nested hierarchy is a consequence of the process of inheritance with modification

Okay.

If this world were designed to be perfect in every way, wouldn't it be more of a supernatural world?

Well, at least some people believe that earth once was a supernatural perfect world that has since fallen into its current state. Are you dismissing that possibility?

But I think you hit on a major problem with the ID movement when you said "theological views underpinning ID". Rather than asking where does the philosophical ideals and the scientific ideals overlap they try to turn their philosophical ideals into scientific processes. And so far have failed to have those ideals accepted in the scientific realm.

I don't have any issue with where people get their inspiration for their science. But after conception, I expect to see science done. I don't rule out the possibility that there is a way to identify a designed biological life form, but I'm skeptical that we can come up with a scientific procedure for doing so. We have no way to calibrate a method without knowing before hand that life form was definitely designed. I don't believe that methods that work for arrow heads and watches will work for life forms.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by herebedragons, posted 08-16-2012 9:02 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by herebedragons, posted 08-19-2012 10:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 167 (670607)
08-16-2012 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Genomicus
08-16-2012 12:57 PM


I'll respond to this bit in a future post, but the for the moment let me offer this comment: by the above argument it appears that evolution does predict that good design in systems rather than both good and bad design because "better design wins over poorer design - so the result is the same." Yet we see many instances in the biological world of inherently flawed design, which I think is an effective response to the quoted statement above.

I disagree. Your response is not effective.

Better design always wins is not what is predicted by evolution. Designs are subject to natural selection and only designs that result in a negative effect on surviving until reproducing are selected against. So a design that shortens life after reaching maturity but still allows siring/bearing and raising offspring (assuming rearing is even necessary) won't be selected against.

So some things are optimized, other things become fixed without being optimized. There are plenty of things that humans do that they are not optimized to do (e.g. rock climbing, or running) but we have the climbing and running abilities sufficient for animals with our other traits to survive in our particular niche.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 12:57 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 1:54 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021